2011

November 3, 2011 WHYY Independence Mall West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

DVG Fall Conference Resource Guide

Thanks to Our Sponsors

Premiere

Supporting

Contributing

Friends

Scholarships provided by:

Brandywine Health Foundation Comcast

Genuardi Family Foundation Glenmede

Independence Foundation Leeway Foundation

North Penn Community Health Foundation The Philadelphia Foundation

For the Poetic Voices:

The Samuel S. Fels Fund

Beth Feldman Brandt Jamarr Hall Julia López

Al Mills & Nnamdi Chukwuocha _________________

DVG’s Member Services Committee

Co-Chairs: Rebecca Quinn-Wolf, PNC Foundation

Mailee Walker, Claneil Foundation

Jennifer Bohnenberger Independence Foundation Denise Brown Leeway Foundation Barbara Del Duke Dow Chemical Company Virginia Frantz Montgomery County Foundation, Inc. Meredith Huffman Genuardi Family Foundation

Eden Kratchman ACE Charitable Foundation

Sarah Martinez-Helfman Eagles Youth Partnership Sandra McLean McLean Contributionship Heidi McPherson Chester County Fund for Women & Girls Grahame Richards The Lenfest Foundation

Nancy Wingo

Hamilton Family Foundation

SPECIAL THANKS

DVG 2011 Fall Conference HOLDING TOGETHER in HIGH-WIRE TIMES

Thursday, November 3, 2011 WHYY | Independence Mall West |Philadelphia, PA

Resource Guide Contents

Conference Materials Conference Agenda

Speaker and Presenter Biographies

List of Registrants (provided separately)

Articles and Reflections

1. Service deserts in nonprofit-land – By Dr. Paul C. Light (The Washington Post, 3-10-2011)

2. The nonprofit sector’s haircut - By Dr. Paul C. Light (The Washington Post, 7-21-2011)

3. Hope Within the Shit Hole - By H. Peter Karoff (The Philanthropic Initiative Deep Social Impact

blog, 8-26-2011)

4. Don’t Check Your Courage at the Door - By Mario Morino, Venture Philanthropy Partners (VPP

blog, 9-12-2011)

5. The New Normal Economy & The Social Sector – By Sean Stannard-Stockton (The Chronicle of

Philanthropy, 2-7-2011)

6. 8 Rules to Help Nonprofit Leaders Navigate a New World – By Rebecca Sive (The Chronicle of

Philanthropy, 3-6-2011)

7. How the Downturn Changes Strategy Work – By Jeanne Bell, CompassPoint (The Chronicle of

Philanthropy, 8-9-2011)

Messages from our Supporters

• Foundant Technologies: Moving to Online Applications – By Prentice Zinn

• Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc.: Critical Thinking on Sustainable Compensation and Benefits

• Glenmede: Succeeding with the Endowment and Foundation Investment Model

• harp-weaver LLC/Phillips Philanthropy Advisors: Independent Philanthropy Advisors Are

Adding Value in Complex Times – By Teresa Araco Rogers

• Prudent Management Associates: Investment Results Key to 2011 Portfolio Findings - By Robert

Capanna

_______________________

Agenda 8:30 AM- 9:30 AM REGISTRATION, NETWORKING & CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 9:30 AM - 12:30 PM PROGRAM

Welcome Debra A. Kahn, Executive Director, Delaware Valley Grantmakers

Introductory Remarks: Setting the Stage • Jeremy Nowak, President & CEO, William Penn Foundation

Conversation and Audience Dialogue: What’s Happening Now Moderator: • Nadya K. Shmavonian, President, Public/Private Ventures Participants: • Patrick E. Bokovitz, Director, Chester County Department of Community

Development • Virginia Frantz, President & CEO, Montgomery County Foundation, Inc. • Donna Frisby-Greenwood, Philadelphia Program Director, John S. and James

L. Knight Foundation • Jeffrey W. Gordon, Manager, Community Relations, PECO • Stacy Holland, CEO, Philadelphia Youth Network • Farah Jimenez, President & CEO, People's Emergency Center

Endnote Speaker • Dr. Paul C. Light, Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service, New York

University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service Closing Comments Ronnie Bloom, President, Delaware Valley Grantmakers and Director-

Children, Youth & Families, William Penn Foundation

12:30 PM – 1:30 PM NETWORKING LUNCH

________________

Speaker and Presenter Biographies DR. PAUL C. LIGHT Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service Dr. Paul C. Light is NYU Wagner’s Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service. Previously the associate dean and professor of public affairs at the University of Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, and Senior Advisor to two national commissions on Public Service chaired by Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul A. Volcker, Light has proven his well-earned reputation as a leading and respected academic, public servant, and national expert on organizational performance. Before joining NYU, Dr. Light served as the Douglas Dillon Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, founding director of its Center for Public Service, and vice president and director of the Governmental Studies Program. Previously he served as director of the Public Policy Program at the Pew Charitable Trusts. He is the author of over 20 books on business, public service, and education including the award-winning Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability and The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945-1995. He is also co-author of a best-selling American government textbook, Government by the People. Light is a regular contributor to the opinion pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post, where he writes an occasional column titled “Light on Leadership.” He is a familiar voice on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” and a well-known public speaker on organizational life. Dr. Light earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan. JEREMY NOWAK President and CEO William Penn Foundation Jeremy Nowak is president and CEO of the William Penn Foundation, a $2 billion philanthropy founded in 1945 by Otto and Phoebe Haas. The Foundation is dedicated to improving the quality of life in the Greater Philadelphia region through efforts that foster rich cultural expression, strengthen children’s futures, and deepen connections to nature and community. Nowak spent 26 years leading The Reinvestment Fund, an innovative nonprofit that has invested $1 billion in housing, community arts centers, schools, commercial real estate, and sustainable energy projects. TRF’s ventures include PolicyMap.com, a national data analysis and mapping tool with more than 10,000 data elements; the Fresh Food Financing Initiative, a successful effort to bring healthy fresh foods to underserved communities; and TRF Development Partners, a real estate venture that is rebuilding one of Baltimore’s most distressed communities.

Nowak is Vice Chair of the board of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank. He has played leadership roles with the boards of Mastery Charter School Foundation, which supports Mastery Charter Schools, a network of four inner city middle & high schools; and Alex’s Lemonade Stand, a charity that has raised $28 million for pediatric cancer research during the past five years. The author of numerous articles, Nowak's recent publications examine policy options for distressed cities and the role of art and culture in neighborhood regeneration. He was a Fellow at the Aspen Institute, in a program for entrepreneurial leaders in education and is a member of the Harvard (Kennedy School) executive session on cities and social enterprise. He holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology from The New School for Social Research. He has also been awarded honorary doctorates from Villanova and La Salle Universities. In 1995 he was the recipient of the Philadelphia Award, the city’s highest civic honor. Panel Participants Discussion Moderator: NADYA K. SHMAVONIAN President Public/Private Ventures Nadya Shmavonian began her tenure as President of Public/Private Ventures in January 2010. Prior to joining P/PV, she worked as an independent consultant, providing strategic direction and counsel to many private foundations and a broad array of local, national and international nonprofit organizations. She has extensive foundation management experience, most recently having served as vice president for strategy at the Rockefeller Foundation. Earlier in her career, she spent 12 years at The Pew Charitable Trusts, where she worked as executive vice president, following several years as a director of administration and a program officer in health and human services. Between these executive leadership roles, she served as an independent consultant to foundations and nonprofit organizations in the areas of management consulting and executive coaching, strategic planning and evaluation, leadership and organizational development, meeting facilitation, infrastructure development, human resources management and program design. Before joining the foundation community, she worked in the health sector, as well as overseas in humanitarian relief, both of which she continued to address during the 23 years she spent in and around philanthropy. Shmavonian currently serves as one of the first two nonfamily members of the Surdna Foundation Board, on the Board of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, on the Board of the Lenfest Foundation, on the Board of The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (a joint partnership of the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations) and on the Board of Partners for Seed in Africa Fund (an initiative for South Sudan supported by Howard Buffet). She also serves as an Advisory Board member to the National Philanthropic Trust and to the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Shmavonian holds a B.A. from the University of Chicago, and an M.B.A. in healthcare management from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. In 2011, she received the Kathleen McDonald Distinguished Alumna Award from Wharton Women in Business.

Patrick E. Bokovitz Director Chester County Department of Community Development Patrick Bokovitz has worked for the County of Chester since 1994 implementing affordable housing, community construction, community services, infrastructure, economic development and workforce programs and activities primarily in the urban centers of the county. In January 2007, he was named by the Chester County Commissioners as the Director of the Chester County Department of Community Development and the Chester County Workforce Investment Board after serving as the Deputy Director for the previous three years. In this role, Bokovitz works to provide housing, neighborhood improvement, workforce development, and social services to the citizens of Chester County so they have the opportunity to successfully live and work in a safe, stable, and desirable community. Bokovitz is a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University and the West Chester University Master’s Degree program in Urban and Regional Planning. He serves on the Boards of the Chester County Economic Development Council, the Housing Authority of the County of Chester and the Chester County Workforce Investment Board.

Virginia Frantz President & CEO Montgomery County Foundation, Inc. Virginia Frantz is the president and CEO of The Montgomery County Foundation, Inc., a community foundation based in Norristown, PA that works with donors to guide their philanthropy to benefit Montgomery County communities. The Foundation exemplifies Frantz’s life-long personal and professional commitment to both identifying challenges and acting as a catalyst for seeking community solutions. Major service projects of the foundation include 211 SEPA, an online directory (www.211sepa.org) and live call center providing referrals to health and human service programs in the five-county region of southeastern Pennsylvania; and the Learners to Leaders: Civic Engagement of Older Adults Initiative focused on changing how the community perceives the skills and experiences of individuals 55-plus. Frantz’s professional memberships and business affiliations have included serving as a board member of the Montgomery County Estate Planning Council; chair of the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Visioning Council; board member of the Montgomery Bar Foundation; member and past chair of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. Frantz is also an active member of the Delaware Valley Grantmakers’ Member Services Committee. Donna Frisby-Greenwood Philadelphia Program Director John S. and James L. Knight Foundation In 2010, Donna Frisby-Greenwood became program director for Philadelphia for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, a Miami-based philanthropy that supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts. In Philadelphia, Knight is working to engage both the city’s vibrant arts community and young people as innovators and agents of change.

Prior to joining Knight, Frisby-Greenwood launched and led the Philadelphia school district’s Office of College and Career Awareness. Previously, she helped to create the country's first online voter registration drive as executive director of Rock the Vote, Los Angeles. She also served as executive director of Inner-City Games Philadelphia and founder and executive director of Children First, Inc. Frisby-Greenwood is on the board of directors of the Philadelphia Commercial Development Corporation and Afro-One Dance Company. An Eisenhower and National Urban Fellow, she received the Distinguished Leadership Award from the Community College of Philadelphia, the Forum Award from the Forum of Executive Women and has been named by Essence Magazine as one of Fifty Women to Watch. Frisby-Greenwood has a bachelor’s in English from the University of Virginia and a master’s in public administration from Baruch College.

Jeffrey W. Gordon Manager, Community Relations PECO Jeff Gordon is Manager of Corporate Relations at PECO. His group manages PECO’s corporate citizenship initiatives, including sponsorships, contributions, special events and employee volunteerism. These initiatives include the PECO Primate Reserve at the Philadelphia Zoo, PECO Pops at the Mann, PECO Multicultural Festival at Penn’s Landing and support for a variety of educational, environmental, arts and culture, diversity and civic organizations. Before coming to PECO in 1998, Gordon was Vice President of Corporate Community Relations at Meridian Bank for fourteen years. He developed “Money $mart”, a financial literacy program for high school students and managed Meridian’s involvement as founding sponsor of two major tourism events: Musikfest (Bethlehem) and Mayfair (Allentown). Gordon began his career as a teacher, and later, an arts administrator. He was Director of Education and Community Outreach for the Hartford Stage Company and Managing Director of the Pennsylvania Stage Company in Allentown. In the community, Gordon is a board member of the Marian Anderson Awards, Chester County Historical Society and the corporate advisory board of Congreso de Latinos Unidos. Gordon holds a bachelor’s degree in English from Trinity College and a master’s in English from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Stacy Holland President & CEO Philadelphia Youth Network Stacy Holland is a co-founder and currently serves as President and CEO of the Philadelphia Youth Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving educational and economic outcomes for youth. Holland has overseen the growth of the organization since its inception in 1999 as a small nonprofit subsidiary to its current role as an independent citywide entity dedicated to integrating services and building systems that promote positive post-secondary outcomes for young people. Prior to her work with PYN, Holland served as Chief of Staff at the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation, during which she served as the project manager for a company-wide reorganization. She has extensive experience designing, managing and evaluating programs that increase college access for high school students and help minority and first-generation college students succeed in college.

Holland is the vice chair of the Executive Board of the national Intermediary Network and chair of Philadelphia's Freedom Schools Advisory Committee and serves as chair of the board for Sankofa Freedom Academy Charter School . She recently joined the board of directors of the Wells Fargo Regional Foundation and was appointed by the Mayor to the Board of Trustees at Community College of Philadelphia.

Farah Jimenez President & CEO People’s Emergency Center In 2010, Farah Jimenez became President and CEO of the People’s Emergency Center – a comprehensive social services agency in West Philadelphia that serves homeless families through a range of housing, case management and counseling services; serves homeless and low-income individuals through its education centers developing parenting, child care, employment, literacy, and technology skills; and serves the greater West Philadelphia community through its housing and commercial real estate activities, small business supportive services, neighborhood planning and community partnerships in music, art, and fitness. Before arriving at PEC, Jimenez spent 13 years at the helm of Mt. Airy USA, a nonprofit real estate development corporation in Philadelphia's historic Mt. Airy neighborhood. As its Executive Director, Jimenez led Mt. Airy USA’s successful efforts to transform its neighborhood’s long-blighted commercial corridor into a thriving dining and retail destination in Northwest Philadelphia. Employing real estate development strategies as a primary catalyst for this transformation, Ms. Jimenez led the development of various commercial and residential projects – from rental to homeownership to condo – and acquired a six-acre site for the agency’s next venture – a $50 million transit village. In 2006, President Bush appointed Jimenez to a five-year term on the Community Development Advisory Board of the U.S. Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Jimenez serves as a trustee of La Salle University, on the board of the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and as a member of the grantmaking services committee of The Philadelphia Foundation. Jimenez is also a regular panelist on WPVI’s Inside Story, a weekly public affairs show on 6ABC in Philadelphia.

_________________

POETS Beth Feldman Brandt

Beth Feldman Brandt began writing poems in 2004 at 4:00 AM in a hotel in New York City. Since then, her work has explored such divergent themes as ocean habitats, atomic clocks, herbal remedies and the Origin of Species.

She is currently collaborating with painter and book artist Claire Owen on Sage, a book of poems and images based on John Gerard's "The herbal, or, General history of plants" from 1633. Much of this work was created during two residencies at the Ragdale Foundation in 2009 and 2010. Her poem, "Transmutation," based on the life of Charles Darwin, was set to music by composer Andrew Litts and performed

by Network for New Music in 2010.

She has published poems in Philadelphia Stories, Quay: A Journal of the Arts and Mad Poet's Review. Her poem, "fault lines," was a finalist for the Haiku Year-in-Review by Broadsided Press in 2010. More about her work can be found at: www.brandtwords.com Jamarr Hall Jamarr Hall, 19, is a graduate of Murrell Dobbins CTE. He is a member of the championship team of the 2011 Brave New Voices, an international competition for young poets across the world. The Philadelphia Youth Poetry Movement has been a big influence on his life, most importantly the mentors involved with the program -- great people like the director and co-founder himself "just Greg" or as you may know him Gregory Corbin of PYPM . Jamarr is a poet, actor, and comedian. He has starred in a series directed by Donja R. Love called System Report, playing the role of Jamal Mannes, an 18-year-old youth in the juvenile system. He is an activist and a role model for his generation. He says “just because we’re at a stage in our lives where times seem dark doesn’t mean we can’t rise up and be a beacon of hope that gives the next generation something to look forward to.”

Julia López

Julia is a mother, an artist and a seasoned arts and education professional who advocates strongly for the power of the arts and social change. Julia is a founding member of Las Gallas, inter-disciplinary artists collective. Julia has written over 20 plays and performance art pieces that she has performed and read in venues throughout the United States, Mexico, and Madrid, Spain.

For six years, Julia was the Visual Arts Program Director for Taller Puertorriqueño, worked with the Asian Arts Initiative for seven years developing the curriculum and implementing their Artists In Communities Training program, served as Board President of the Leeway Foundation for four years, and was the

Executive Director of Centro Pedro Claver, a nonprofit community empowerment organization. In the fall of 2009, Julia was a Cultural Envoy for the U.S. Consulate in Juarez, Mexico, invited to facilitate an Arts and Community Development project. López is a graduate of Wesleyan University with a B.A. in Theatre Arts, has completed Masters course work in Community Economic Development, and studied abroad in Madrid, Spain. She has received numerous awards and recognitions and traveled extensively throughout Europe, Central America, the Caribbean and the United States.

The Twin Poets Tutors, mentors, big brothers, community activist, leaders, scholars, summa cum laude grads, allies, soldiers, father-figures, artist, camp directors, counselors, historians, master social workers, non- profit administrators, brothers, friends, fathers, sons, - all of these titles can be summed to one: THE TWIN POETS. Truly their work reflects their lives. Not many who have witnessed a performance or read a poem by the Twin Poets (Al & Nnamdi) would deny that they have seen or felt the power. Their compassion and commitment for their words is only outdone by their work in the community. For the past decade and a half these two wordsmiths have been warriors on the front line for our community, placing the needs of the community before their own. Founders of GOALS-Getting Organized Always Leads to Success-a tutoring and mentoring program run out of their home in North Wilmington. They have won many awards for their work including State Mentors of the Year, State of DE- Department of Youth & Families –Village Award, The Mayors Award for Service to Children, Bank of America- Local Heroes Award, Citizens of the Year – Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Outstanding Young Wilmingtonian Award for community service and the Christi Award for Community Service through the Arts. Inspired at an early age to write and express themselves, Al & Nnamdi have become two of the most respected poets on the reemerging poetry scene. Performances with such poetic legends as The Last Poets, Amiri Baraka, Sonia Sanchez, Lamont Steptoe, Walter Mosley, Haki Madhubuti and Chinua Achebe have paved the way to repeated captivating performances at NY’s Nuyorican, PA’s Painted Bride, and DE’s Grand Opera House; college/university/school tours from Ivy Leagues to local preschools, orphanages and area group homes. The depth of their messages has allowed them to be included in the prison poetry programs in DE, PA and NY. The Twin Poets were featured on HBO’s Def Poetry, BET’s Lyric Café, the Kings of Poetry and NPR’s Poetic License. They have toured nationally and internationally most recently with the Poetically Incorrect Tour. The Twin Poets are the subject of the Hearts and Minds Films Documentary: Why I Write which chronicles their artistic and social work on the frontlines to save children and empower communities. Professionally, the brothers are master social workers and leaders within the non-profit sector; Nnamdi is the Associate Executive Director at Kingswood Community Center and Al is the Program Director for Project Stay Free (a community based juvenile probation/ re-entry program).

________________

Articles and Reflections

Service deserts in nonprofit-land BY PAUL LIGHT | MARCH 10, 2011; 9:59 AM ET

The nation's nonprofit sector is a leading indicator of economic collapse and recovery. It tightens first as anxious donors hold onto their dollars, and rebounds last as anxieties finally fade.

In between the starts and stops, the sector bears the brunt of increasing demand, budget cuts and delayed payments. Reserves begin to disappear, credit lines evaporate and volunteers become clients. Asked to do much more with far less, many nonprofits end up trying to do almost everything with nothing.

The nonprofit sector is not about to disappear, of course. It's a major industry in its own right with 11 million employees, 63 million volunteers and $1.5 trillion in annual income.

Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that many nonprofits closed their doors over the past three years, while others are about to do so. In 2008, I estimated that 100,000 of the nation's 1 million tax-exempt nonprofits could go under during the recession. Those exits may or may not be offset by the creation of new nonprofits, but there seems to be little doubt that much of the deforestation is now occurring in low-income communities where service deserts are swallowing up thousands of relatively small community-based organizations. If we could map decimation by census tracks, we'd see the deserts popping up in all the familiar neighborhoods--the ones where the most vulnerable Americans live.

These deserts would be easy to spot if the Internal Revenue Service more closely monitored the state of the sector it regulates. But the IRS doesn't care much whether nonprofits live or die as long as they follow the law and file their annual reports. The IRS knows exactly how many organizations have been given tax-exempt status over the years, but readily admits it doesn't have a clue how many have gone under. Nonprofits are under no obligation to tell anyone when they close, and Congress and the president don't seem to care. If thousands of nonprofits have failed these past three years, as House Speaker John Boehner might say, 'so be it.'

The brutal reality is that the nonprofit sector is nobody's business in federal, state or local government. Other industries have their own promoters in government, but not the nonprofit sector. Other industries also have their own committees in Congress and tireless, well-funded lobbyists, but not the nonprofit sector. Other industries have their White House czars, carefully crafted logos and dutiful political champions, but not the nonprofit sector.

Although well-known charities such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Girl Scouts, American Cancer Society and Care have all taken hits over the past three years, it's the small community-based organizations that appear to be most at risk. They often operate at the margins, neither too large too fail nor too small to eek it out with a little help from the United Way. They are the go-to agencies for

everything from early-childhood education to HIV/AIDs prevention, but are on the chopping block in every state.

Many of these nonprofits are still hoping for a miracle, even as they continue to hollow out their organizations with job cuts. But even if there is a miracle, it will not come soon enough to save them. The federal stimulus is gone, donors are still assessing the damage as they set their payout targets, angels are few and far to be found, and volunteering is still flat.

Moreover, there's strong pressure to reduce the number of community-based nonprofits. Between 1999 and 2009, the number of nonprofits soared from 600,000 to 1 million, driven in part by a desire to help the needy and in part by government contracting. Some of these nonprofits started in a niche and remained there, while others continue to duplicate services available around the corner. Even the sector's strongest advocates have come to believe that there are just too many nonprofits.

The question is not whether it is time for a winnowing, however. It is already underway and will likely accelerate as the economy continues to waffle between recovery and reversal. Nor is the question whether the nonprofit sector could benefit from its own round of consolidation, administrative streamlining and performance measurement. Even the nonprofit sector can use an overhaul.

Rather, the question is whether the nonprofit winnowing will come through a deliberative process or the kind of scrum that prevailed as the House attacked the discretionary budget two weeks ago.

The prevailing wisdom these days is that survival of the fittest should take its course, the only problem being that the fittest may not be the most valuable. There are some nonprofits that are extremely strong but no longer relevant, and others that are very weak but intensely important for strengthening communities, delivering services where no other resources exist and serving as harbingers of the social trust that Robert Putnam wrote about in Bowling Alone. Strengthening weak but important nonprofits is an imminently better investment for the sector than allowing moribund, perpetuity-seeking nonprofits to survive.

Picking the right nonprofits to sustain while easing out the nonprofits that long ago forgot why they exist is both difficult and painful. But it is the only way to assure that the sector retains its longstanding commitment to fill the gaps created by market failures, antiquated government programs and needless delays.

That means engaging the sector's leaders in a courageous conversation about how to prevent service deserts as the budget cutting continues. It is what the Obama administration has tried to do in sorting its cuts in the federal budget, and what the House ignored. Once the deserts have taken hold, they will be painfully hard to reverse.

______________

“The prevailing wisdom these

days is that survival of the

fittest should take its course,

the only problem being that

the fittest may not be the

most valuable.”

BY PAUL LIGHT THE WASHINGTON POST | JULY 21, 2011

The same political and economic volatility that’s shaking this country is also rattling its 1.6 million nonprofit leaders—and they may be feeling the tremors even more deeply.

The stock market and debt crisis have blown holes in the endowments of the nation's biggest philanthropies, and the sector's leaders have been hollowing out their organizations for three years now as volunteering and individual giving remain flat. Meanwhile, efforts to raise revenues through commercial enterprises are being challenged in court. Having been pushed to behave more like businesses for years, many nonprofits are now being treated as such by federal courts.

In a case decided just last month, Federal Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner declared that the “Girl Scouts are not readily distinguishable from Dunkin' Donuts.” In explaining his decision to allow states to regulate the Girl Scout cookie business the way they would a commercial business, Posner opened the floodgates for challenges to camps, daycares, fitness centers, and the rising number of other profit-making activities that many nonprofits have started as a way of reducing dependency on unreliable government contracts, individual contributions and philanthropic grants.

The decision came on the heels of new data showing continued hard times for sector leaders. The latest survey by Giving USA shows that giving fell by higher percentages in 2008 and 2009 than in any other years over the past five decades. The numbers were far below the hoped-for rise in dollars needed to help victims of the long and seemingly intractable recession. Adjusting for inflation, donations dropped 15 percent – well below the amount needed to keep with rapidly rising demand.

June also produced an initial tally from the Internal Revenue Service’s purge of nonprofits that failed to file the three consecutive years of tax forms needed to maintain their tax-exempt status. All totaled, 275,000 of the nation's roughly 1.6 million charities lost their papers; and of those, 150,000 or so were traditional public charities that help the needy. The purge will continue into the future with as many as 10,000 nonprofits expected to lose their status each month this summer and fall.

No one knows just yet which nonprofits went down. But emerging analysis from both the Urban Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics and Guidestar has already confirmed that most were small organizations that shut their doors, or never quite existed in the first place. Not all of the now-dead organizations were small, however. According to Guidestar, the top 100 organizations that went under had revenue from $4 million to $400 million – which means these nonprofits must have been lazy, sloppy or just plain ignorant.

The Urban Institute and Guidestar also already know that 25 percent of the revocations involved nonprofits created in the 1990s, and another 25 percent in the 2000s. The rest have been around from time immemorial, many just in a file drawer in someone's basement. Why any of these deceased organizations ever asked for tax-exempt status in the first place is anyone's guess, but the purge leaves the sector lighter and possibly weaker. Moreover, the purge has so far only covered nonprofits that failed to send in their relatively simple tax forms from 2007 to 2009, not yet the ones that may have dropped out as the recession bit even deeper in 2009 and 2010. Expect as many as 50,000 more revocations to come before the end of the calendar year.

The nonprofit sector’s haircut

So what's a nonprofit leader to do giving the storms on the horizon? Many have decide to hollow out their organizations through staff cuts, pay freezes and “holidays” (a ridiculous term for temporary furloughs), and smaller benefit packages. The assumption is that nonprofit employees will make such tradeoffs for the chance to make a difference. As I've argued in the past, the nonprofit workforce is like a toy mouse – wind them up, and they'll do more for less until they are finally doing everything with nothing.

The IRS purge suggests a different strategy. There was nothing the agency could do given the congressional order to act, and the agency worked hard to find, notify, remind and cajole dilatory nonprofits to file. Although some experts have declared an Armageddon, the purge actually produced a long-overdue cleansing, and stands as a healthy reminder that new nonprofits are not always the best choice for helping people.

Given the court decisions challenging commercial activity, the downturn in giving, and the continued government negligence, nonprofit leaders need to think harder about transformation. They must attack the duplication and overlap through consolidation with their competitors; flatten their bloated hierarchies and

confusing management structures; invest in the frontline workforce that is straining under rising case loads; and harvest these savings for basic investments in the information technologies, training and modest compensation increases needed to assure high performance.

Nonprofit leaders also have to get much better at measuring the value they produce. They have relied too long on the public's empathy for their revenues, when survey after survey shows that givers want measurable value for their dollars. Americans understand that there is great need out there, but they are often confused about the impact of their dollars. They continue to believe that nonprofits have the right priorities but waste too much money. They want greater efficiency, not more pictures of needy children.

If a nonprofit cannot explain how every dollar given generates more than a dollar in results, it should close its doors.

In the meantime, philanthropic organizations should invest in monitoring organizations such as the Urban Institute. What we don't know about the nonprofit sector has hurt us. The sector has been flying blind for years as the recession has taken its toll. It's time to create the backbone to anticipate the future before it arrives.

_____________________

● ● ●

“As I've argued in the past, the nonprofit workforce is like a toy mouse – wind them up, and they'll do more for less until they are finally doing everything with nothing. “

● ● ●

By Peter Karoff | Posted on the Deep Social Impact Blog | 8-26-11 David Bergholz is one of the best people I have met in the field of philanthropy. For fourteen years, Dave produced high-impact results out of the Cleveland-based George Gund Foundation. Now retired, Dave works on a magnificent garden, and hones his talent as a photographer. In response to my question – how are you? This was his response:

Garden is great, showing and even selling some photos and our kids are good. The world is a shit hole but I don’t know what to do about that. Glad you are well and say hi to Marty. Best, David

Well, as usual, Bergholz is on to something. First of all, he is hardly alone in not knowing what to do about things. As Harold Bloom[i] put it – “Montaigne, who knows everything that matters, professes to know nothing. Shakespeare, preternaturally able to pick up on any hint, clue, or indirection, does not profess at all.” So in these days, where the focus in philanthropy is on professed intentionality, it is good to be reminded of the limits and modesty of true wisdom. As to the world being a “shit hole,” it is hard to argue with that for more reasons than there is time to list, even if we seldom use such trashy words in polite company. But maybe we should. Witness these verses from the poet A. R. Ammons:

but then it is a wastebasket and I

put it out to the use of the world:

it collects trash of the thoughty:

others ( the litter litterers) give

theirs to the wind, the chance and

random boys: but I don’t think

there’s much distinction between

saved and spent trash: trash is what

you make of it:…..and there is

no way, of course, finally to

throw anything away.

Hope within the Shit Hole

Bergholtz is a man of fewer words but Ammons and he have very similar views. What goes around comes around, and only those ‘random boys’ – those too sure they know the answers – profess otherwise. In philanthropic terms, Ammons reinforces the wisdom that “social change is incremental at best,”[ii] which while true is not easy to swallow. We want solutions, answers, scale – not half-baked measures; and patience is hardly an entrepreneurial characteristic.

Ammons goes on to give us a strange, almost liberating perspective:

considering mutability and muck,

..decompositions, ups and downs, comings

and goings, you have passed

from a thousand orifices, some

beneath you and the evolutionary

scale: visibly moved, the gentleman

got some roll-on ban deodorant

and tried to rub off (or out)

shit sticks: its fragrance in the old

days confirmed the caveman he was coming

home: a man’s shit (or tribe’s) reflects

(nasally) the physical makeup of the man

and the physiologies of those others

present, plus what they have gathered

from the environment

to pass through themselves

and the odor of shit is like language,

tone, flavor, accent hard to fake:

everything is more nearly incredible

than you thought at first[iii]

What these lines say is that “we own it!” You can’t sweet-talk or perfume away the catalogue of the world’s problems that emanate from man – through man.

So how do we get our “shit” together and dig ourselves out of the hole? In the face of how incredibly difficult everything we want to do or fix is, how do we find hope?

Vaclav Havel helps with this:

…Either we have hope within us or we don’t; it is a dimension of the soul, and it’s not essentially dependent on some particular observation of the world or estimate of the situation….It is an orientation of the spirit, … of the heart: it transcends the world that is immediately experienced… I don’t think you can explain it as a mere derivative of something here, of some movement, or some favourable signs in the world. I feel its deepest roots are the transcendental, just as the roots of human responsibility are…..It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

The Havel quote echoes what the twentieth century mystic Howard Thurmond wrote:

A man or woman plants a seed in the ground and the seed sprouts and grows. The weather, the winds, the elements, cannot be controlled by the farmer. The result is never a sure thing. So what does the farmer do? He plants. Always he plants. Again and again he works at it – the ultimate confidence and assurance that even though his seed does not grow to fruition, seeds do grow and they do come to fruition.[iv]

In these terms hope is based on our conviction, our certainty, and our instinct that something makes sense even if the evidence is not apparent except in ways mysterious. This does not diminish the importance of those things we can control – in the case of the farmer, the water, the fertilizer, the sweat of brow, all of which enhance the probability of fruition. In the case of philanthropy – smart process – research, data, strategy, evaluation – are all important elements that contribute to success. Yet even the most disciplined and best-intentioned donors, and the most high-performing organizations, often hit a wall. In the same way a long-distance runner needs to run through the wall, actors within philanthropy need the same resolve. That resolve is not sustainable without hope.

Wallace Stevens wrote, “The nobility of poetry is violence from within that protects us from violence from without.” Seamus Heaney[v] adds, “It is the imagination pressing back against the pressure of reality.”

My translation/adaptation of these lines is visceral: the nobility of philanthropy emanates from our passion within – yes sometimes violent – and our moral imagination pressing back against the real world in all of its disruptiveness.

How powerful is moral imagination? Shelley in A Defense of Poetry wrote:

For the mind in creations is as a fading coal, which some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to transitory brightness: this power arises from within, like the colour of a flower which fades and which changes as it is developed… Could this influence be durable in its original purity and force, it is impossible to predict the greatness of the results.

I think Shelley has lifted us out of the S… hole.

Harold Bloom, in reflecting on his six decades as a professor of literature at Yale writes – “Teaching Shakespeare you teach consciousness, the drive and its defenses, the disorders of the human, the

abysses of personality, the warping of ethos into pathos. That is to say, you teach the range of love, of suffering, of the tragedy of the familial.”

This resonates with philanthropy because it too is a process of ever-expanding consciousness and its subject, its focus, is literally the human experience, in all of its ethos and pathos. That is to say philanthropy’s highest purpose lies within ‘the range of suffering and of love.’

It is still a given that ‘we don’t know what to do.’ But a philanthropy unbound unlocks a legion of untouched capacities and “it is impossible to predict the greatness of the results.” H. Peter Karoff is chairman and founder of The Philanthropic Initiative (TPI), and was President of TPI from 1989 to 2002. He is the author of The World We Want – new dimensions in philanthropy and social change, (AltaMira Press - 2007) and editor of Just Money – A Critique of Contemporary American Philanthropy, (TPI Editions - 2004.) Karoff’s poetry has been published and anthologized. The Philanthropic Initiative, Inc. (TPI) is a nonprofit with a mission to help donors dream big and act wisely. Visit their strategic philanthropy blog, Deep Social Impact, at http://blog.tpi.org/

[i] Harold Bloom, The Anatomy of Influence – Literature as a Way of life – Yale University Press [ii] This is the term that my mentor Mike Sviridoff, Vice President of the Ford Foundation, and founder of LISC (Local Initiatives Support Corporation) was famous for saying whenever confronted with too much exuberance. [iii] A. R. Ammons – Sumerian Vistas, W. R. Norton 1987. [iv] For the Inward Journey, (Richmond, Indiana: Friends United Press, 1961) p.64. [v] The Redress of Poetry, Seamus Heaney, Farrar Strauss and Giroux, 1995.

Chairman’s Corner: Don’t Check Your Courage at the Door By Mario Morino | 9-12-2011 “They check their brains at the door” is a complaint often heard about business leaders who serve on nonprofit boards. This complaint has merit. I regularly observe business leaders who are reluctant to apply the same rigor, objective questioning, performance expectations, and data-informed decision-making that serve them well in their day jobs. I’ve been guilty of this myself. I remember, with great chagrin and embarrassment, how much difficulty I had finding my sea legs when I first joined a nonprofit board. I was appalled by the lack of information available to us, and the little information we did have told me that the organization and its charismatic leader were struggling mightily. Instead of speaking up and constructively demanding the level of stewardship and governance that I took for granted in my corporate board roles, I just got frustrated and said little. I don’t think I checked my brains at the door. But I sure as hell checked my courage. As I reflect on why I didn’t speak up, I suppose I just didn’t know what my role “allowed” me to say or ask. I was the new guy from the business world without any real experience with the type of services the organization provided. I joined this board thinking it would be a “nice thing to do” and certainly not intending to ruffle feathers. I know others from the business world have felt this same hesitation, as well as a related one: Friendships and social ties with the executive director and other board members can blur objectivity and a sense of accountability. The net is that too many nonprofit boards are downright afraid to stir conflict, rock the boat

with hard questions, challenge executive directors, and hold the organization accountable for its performance. We simply don’t want to “hurt somebody’s feelings” or, God forbid, introduce any aspect of conflict—even when it might spur constructive debate. Unfortunately, when we elevate “harmony” over mission and purpose, our clients/beneficiaries often pay a big price in terms of the quality of services they receive. Timid, polite, “collegial” boards may eventually start asking the right questions, but often it’s too late. The questioning finally comes when they’re faced with a problem so severe that they have no choice but to tackle the real issues. By that time, they’re in crisis mode, which, ironically, almost always results in broken glass and busted relationships as well as well as less-than-desired programmatic results. A Caveat About Courage In the 18 years since my initial nonprofit board experience, my internal pendulum has swung too far at times. I’ve gained my share of nonprofit scars by being too outspoken, too forceful, too hard-hitting. I strongly suggest that you use more tact and diplomacy than I have on occasion (but with no less resolve). Some years back, in the middle of board meeting’s droning drumbeat of committee reports, we heard a brief, perfunctory mention of an important capital campaign. Despite the happy talk by the presenter, all the board members knew the capital campaign was badly off track. And yet no one spoke up. At the end of the meeting, the chair went around the room to ask for last comments. No one asked a single question, and some even said it was a “good meeting.” When it was my turn (for better or

worse, I was last), I too emphatically shot back, “Doesn’t anyone want to talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the room? This capital campaign is dead in its tracks!” I know I was right to raise the issue. But I was wrong to let my frustrations drive my reaction. I put the organization’s executives and those board members who did not know me well on the defensive. I wish I had found a more effective way to help the board live up to its responsibility of holding management accountable for what it agrees to do. The White-Knuckle Decade Ahead A huge problem in the sector is that boards get distorted into nothing more than fundraising machines. Nonprofit boards have to play a vital role in raising capital for their organizations, but board members should add much more value than that. As VPP CEO Carol Thompson Cole put it in her July column, “Board members need to bring all their expertise to bear on behalf of the nonprofit.” Most of all, they must provide governance, stewardship, leadership, and ensure mission effectiveness. Especially in these tough financial times, we nonprofit board members need to step up and summon the courage to help our organizations tackle the mission- or organization-threatening forces we could face. Let me be clear: If we fail to do so, we’re abrogating our fiduciary responsibility. In the early ’90s, I presented corporate seminars across the US, Canada, the UK, and Continental Europe to illustrate the great challenges that businesses (and those employed in the private sector) would face in the decade ahead. I was conveying a difficult message to help leaders of corporate enterprises, especially IT executives, see the gut-wrenching change that lay ahead as a result of globalization,

technology innovation, process re-engineering, workforce pressures, and more. I made the case that preparing their organizations (in this case the IT units) with the right leadership, culture, and people, fortified with the right information—including performance-management systems—would be vital assets to help them navigate the storms ahead. I opened these talks by reading striking, angst-provoking headlines I’d found that day about mergers, consolidations, layoffs, labor issues, disruptive technologies, security breaches, etc. I’d take a long pause to let the headlines sink in and then offer this 1990 quote from Jack Welch, then the heralded head of GE: “The 1990s will be a white-knuckle decade for global business.…

Preparing for it won’t be easy. Change will be more wrenching than anything companies have confronted so far.” Fast forward to our current era. As I sketched out in detail in Leap of Reason, we’re clearly in such a white-knuckle decade for our social sector. Budget pressures at the local, state, and federal level are going to have a

dramatic impact on nonprofits. “We’re going to see an environment I don’t think we’ve seen before,” lobbyist Perry Wasserman recently told the Chronicle of Philanthropy. “Everything’s on the table.” Back in March, Professor Paul Light laid bare the realities of this new era of scarcity in this Washington Post blog. “There is growing evidence that many nonprofits closed their doors over the past three years, while others are about to do so. In 2008, I estimated that 100,000 of the nation’s 1 million tax-exempt nonprofits could go under during the recession,” he wrote. “Many of these nonprofits are still hoping for a miracle, even as they continue to hollow out their organizations with job cuts. But even if there is a miracle, it will not come soon enough to save them. The federal

“To navigate the storms ahead, you must have the

right leadership, culture, and people, fortified with the

right information and systems.”

stimulus is gone, donors are still assessing the damage as they set their payout targets, angels are few and far to be found, and volunteering is still flat.” In this fiscal environment, I offer the same advice to nonprofits that I offered to corporate executives in those seminars: To navigate the storms ahead, you must have the right leadership, culture, and people, fortified with the right information and systems. In spite of the remarkable resiliency nonprofits have demonstrated over the years, the stark reality is that the social sector is nowhere near as prepared for what lies ahead as businesses were 20 years ago. Preparing for the Unthinkable In such volatile times a board has to be on top of what the organization is doing today to sustain itself and be effective in serving others. It must also look courageously at the bigger picture. How are the times—and expectations—changing for your organization? Does your organization have the leadership, capacity, and resiliency to deal with difficult times ahead? What previously unthinkable scenarios may you face? Here are just a few macro forces shaping the world in which all nonprofits operate: • The unthinkable is not only possible; it is

already happening. Let’s stop for a minute to reflect on all of the previously unthinkable events that have come to pass over the last decade: terrorists kill nearly 3,000 in suicide attacks on the nation’s financial and political capitals; 290,000 die following a catastrophic tsunami in the Indian Ocean; Hurricane Katrina devastates the Gulf Coast; excessive risk and greed in the mortgage market triggers a massive financial meltdown and nearly triggers a global depression; US voters elect an African-American president; General Motors goes into bankruptcy. As Joshua Cooper Ramo writes in The Age of the Unthinkable, “Change will be difficult…. It

requires a psychological shift from being certain about our future to being uncertain, a transformation that is as stressful as it is productive. [We are not] architects of a system we can control and manage. [We must see ourselves as] gardeners in a living, shifting ecosystem.”

• The erosion of the American middle class is

real—and accelerating. I highly recommend Don Peck’s September Atlantic Monthly cover story, “Can the Middle Class Be Saved?” Peck’s argument, backed by a wealth of economic and demographic data, is that the Great Recession accelerated a profound economic transformation that was already in process—shifting even more power toward highly educated Americans with creative talents or analytic skills and away from everyone else, including formerly secure professionals with college degrees. “America’s classes are separating and changing,” says Peck. “A tiny elite continues to float up and away from everyone else.” The American Dream of upward mobility is at grave risk, which has huge implications for our economy and, even more important, our society.

• Reducing the U.S. deficit and debt will

result in huge strain on the nonprofit sector. The country has racked up unsustainable debts. The burden of these debts—and of debt reduction—will not be shared equally. As always, those with the least voice and power are going to get hit the worst. And yet I am struck by how few organizations—from think tanks to large service-delivery nonprofits to the tens of thousands of foundations and nonprofits formed over the past 15 years—are studying these socioeconomic and fiscal changes to understand the implications for the social sector and, more important, those it serves. As much as I respect and cherish the entrepreneurial zeal of involved donors, social entrepreneurs, and other innovators, I am stunned by their seeming denial of the realities that Paul Light and a few others are calling out. Synthesizing

inputs across the private, public, and social sectors, it is utterly clear that socioeconomic shifts, painful disruptions, and fiscal cuts will result in less public funding, heightened expectations of improved performance at lower cost, and a greater need for services.

What Can We Do? Yes, these macro forces are abstract and in another galaxy for nonprofit leaders just trying to meet payroll this month. It is no wonder that the immediate, urgent needs they are serving keep them from thinking about what lies ahead. Yet if they don’t envision and adapt for their future, their organizations may not survive. This is where the board and leadership must summon the courage to face the music and prepare for the future, even if things are going swimmingly today. Many who come from the commercial sector have faced similarly disruptive hits in their business lives, and their hard-won lessons could be valuable to nonprofits. When leaders share these lessons with courage and tact, their insights often have a wonderful focusing effect on a board. In fact, I’ve often been in board meetings where one brave, incisive question immediately leads to others

like it, raising the level of candor in the room and creating an opening for deeper introspection and more creative problem-solving. As the chairman of VPP, I have benefited from just this type of pragmatic questioning by fellow board members at critical junctures in VPP’s evolution. In my November column, I’ll pose some key questions I believe every board should discuss in preparation for the troublesome times

ahead. In the meantime, I’d encourage you to think about your own experiences with nonprofit boards. Are you taking your fiduciary responsibility seriously? Are you driving higher quality in your programs, given that quality is perhaps the most important prerequisite for sustainability? Is there an unthinkable scenario already on your horizon? What are you doing to move the

board and organization as a whole out of their comfort zones to look at the hard issues? What are you doing to help create the right culture and people, fortified with the right information? Don’t be a tin man or a cowardly lion. Now’s the time to summon all your brainpower and courage for the good of the organization and those it serves!

Mario Morino is founder of The Morino Institute and co-founder and chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners (VPP), a philanthropic investment organization that helps great leaders build strong, high-performing nonprofit institutions. Learn more about VPP online at: http://www.vppartners.org/.

“Simply put, we have to step out of our comfort zone and think the unthinkable, the

unimaginable, the impossible—and plan for what we would do

if these things happened.”

Chronicle of Philanthropy By Sean Stannard-Stockton | February 7, 2011

Donors and Nonprofits Face a Defining Moment in Responding to a Crisis The economic crisis of the 21st century’s first decade did not cause the apocalypse for American philanthropy that many experts had feared. In fact, charitable donations topped $300-billion during each year of the recession, a sign of philanthropy’s resilience.

But now as the second decade opens, we may well face philanthropy’s defining moment.

How donors, foundations, and nonprofits handle the challenges and opportunities of the coming 10 years will determine if philanthropy in the first half of this century is an important player in shaping how the world works or merely an honorable effort that has limited influence.

Many economists have described the post-recession economy as “the new normal,” a term coined by Mohamed El-Erian, former director of the unit that manages Harvard University’s endowment, in his book When Markets Collide.

Mr. El-Erian, who crafted the term before the global financial crisis erupted, used the phrase to describe his view that the engine of economic growth would no longer be the United States but emerging market economies. He believes the new normal will ultimately be healthier for the global economy, although he acknowledges that it will cause many problems in America and elsewhere as the engines of growth in the economic world shift gears.

For philanthropy, the new normal would make an enormous difference to donors and charities that have been working to increase standards of living for the billions of people who live in poverty in the developing world. Efforts to promote global health and international development and to aid struggling entrepreneurs could be accelerated as the economies of developing nations grow stronger.

But as history shows, accelerating economies do not always increase standards of living equally across all income levels. The new normal presents philanthropy a chance to demonstrate that it can strengthen the connection between economic growth and broad-based increases in standards of living.

In the United States, philanthropy also must focus on what the new normal means. Ballooning budget deficits and debt at the federal, state, and municipal levels of government are problems that people of all political beliefs agree must be solved. Even a rapid increase in charitable giving could not possibly make up for the cuts in government spending that will probably be made over the next decade. The billions of dollars contributed to charities each year are minuscule compared with government outlays.

However, to the extent that philanthropy can help build high-performing nonprofits that are able to deliver effective programs and services in low-cost ways, it can be a major part of solving the nation’s deficit woes. Perhaps just as important, however, are philanthropic efforts that prevent the problems

The New Normal Economy & The Social Sector

that end up costing society the most to deal with—problems like drug addiction, illiteracy, and criminal behavior.

The U.K. is moving to formalize that idea. It now issues “social impact bonds” that will provide government payments to private investors who finance nonprofit programs that are able to reduce the government’s costs. For now, the bonds apply just to groups that reduce the number of people who commit crimes after they are released from prison. But that idea should be expanded to other causes and to the United States. Philanthropy must embrace this sort of sophisticated financing strategy that aligns the interests of government, donors, and private investors.

The nonprofit world must not let itself be a victim of government spending cuts but instead offer solutions that help close the deficit by offering social programs that deliver better results at a lower cost to taxpayers.

Nonprofits will also need to get more involved in helping America climb out of the unemployment crisis.

One reason job growth is so sluggish is the misalignment between the skills of American workers and the skills needed by companies in the United States. Nonprofits and philanthropists can help fix that problem.

Nonprofits themselves already contribute mightily to the employment market—after all, they employ one in 10 workers and as a group have produced faster growth in new jobs than their for-profit counterparts.

But nonprofits also play a critical role in the job market by offering retraining classes for workers, by employing individuals who otherwise wouldn’t find jobs and preparing them to enter the traditional job market, and by stimulating job growth in critical areas such as education, health care, and clean energy. Retooling the American work force for the new normal must become a top priority for philanthropy.

When a crisis ends, it is natural for people to breathe a sigh of relief and attempt to return to the status quo before the crisis. While the financial emergency is behind us, the challenges ahead will take every ounce of creativity and hard work we can muster.

Philanthropists and nonprofits must not relax and retreat but instead must redouble their efforts as active players in shaping how society works. If philanthropy ignores the big issues caused by the changing economy, it could become little more than a morally righteous activity—and not a vibrant, powerful force for social good.

________________________________________________________________________________ Sean Stannard-Stockton is a wealth advisor at Ensemble Capital Management where he specializes in serving philanthropic families. He is the author of the Tactical Philanthropy blog (www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/) and a columnist for the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

“If philanthropy ignores the big issues caused by the

changing economy, it could become little more than a

morally righteous activity—and not a vibrant, powerful

force for social good.”

8 Rules to Help Nonprofit Leaders Navigate a New World By Rebecca Sive

The Chronicle of Philanthropy | 3-6-2011

or years, I’ve lived in Chicago and put the

Rules for Radicals, developed by the

great community organizer Saul Alinsky

to the test, just like so many of my colleagues

running the nation’s nonprofits. But I’ve come

to the conclusion that the Great Recession, and

the changes in the political environment

accompanying it, requires a new set of rules. To

be sure, some of Mr. Alinsky’s rules still apply:

Never neglect your base.

Focus on the issue that gathers the most

people across the most constituencies.

It’s the organizing, not the momentarily

troubling situation, that matters most.

But today’s organizational environment is

completely different from what it was in 1971

when Mr. Alinsky wrote his manual. Perhaps

most important to realize at the outset of 2011

is this: No matter whether or when we get back

to the days of “full employment” and

manageable government deficits, the notion

that any government leader of any political

persuasion anywhere will be comfortable

authorizing massive amounts of government

money for nonprofits that provide or advocate

for social services for needy people is history.

By way of example, just look at my state,

Illinois. It is on the brink of bankruptcy. You just

don’t go from bankruptcy to largess in any time

period that matters in the life of organizations

that struggle every day to get the financial fix

they need just to survive. This is especially

unlikely given the reality that today in the

majority of the states, many of these nonprofits

don’t hold the same policy positions as the

state officials who hold the purse strings.

Further, governments don’t go from bankruptcy

to largess when so many Americans, so many of

the voters who elected these very government

officials, question the basic tenet that Mr.

Alinsky and his followers subscribe to: that it is

government’s responsibility to finance

programs that improve the public welfare and

help the helpless.

Notably, these Alinsky followers, the generation

that founded so many of today’s struggling

nonprofits, and often still runs them, is

approaching retirement.

Even though the retirement of these leaders

may come later rather than sooner, because of

the tumble personal and institutional finances

took in the recession, their mind-set is already

very different from what it once was: They

F

might not admit it, but they’re bone-tired. And

bone-tired means only one thing to the

committed social-change organizer: Do the right

thing every day just as fast as you can, for you

might not have much time left.

So this brings me to the “new rules” I’ve

developed, rules I think these veteran leaders

should take to heart in this new era.

Unless you’re able and willing to turn on a

dime, find another job. Cataclysmic times

require fast and strategic thinking, not about

long-term plans, but instead about short-term

opportunities that maximize stability and

positive results from programs. No others need

apply.

Ambiguity creates opportunity. While people

are confused about what path to take,

nonprofit leaders can take a chance to shape

the agenda and thus build their organizations in

smart new ways.

Consistency of message is everything. So right

now (with a nod to James Carville), “it’s the

economy, stupid.” Just as the voters made clear

in this recent election, it all comes back to

economic security. Absent that, for example,

good health care, good child care, or a good

education can’t be achieved. Significantly, to

achieve these ends for America’s at-risk

families, organizations need to direct their

organizing and services to women, for it is

women who head these at-risk families.

Operating with the mind-set of an

entrepreneur is the only fruitful way to

proceed. Successful entrepreneurs take

calculated risks, quickly. That way, they get to—

again, quickly—learn what works and what

doesn’t. Likewise, organizations that do this will

quickly build good programs that donors will

want to support enthusiastically and people of

influence will flock to aid.

Get in on the ground floor with young and new

types of donors. Build personal relationships

with them that are constant and deep. You

don’t have time to wait for older rich donors,

who devote most of their giving to elite causes,

to find you and give you a pittance. Instead, go

out and find the new rich, those who haven’t

yet made their mark in the broader community

but who want to, quickly. Read the tech pages.

Your board members should be risk-takers.

The Sarbanes-Oxley law and other mood-

changers have meant new fiscal and legal

responsibilities for nonprofit board members.

But the green eyeshades won’t suffice. Boards

must also be willing to take risks to fight for

change.

Staff members should be young and hungry.

Hire people half your age to help you figure out

how to adjust to this new world. No matter how

in sync you may think you are with today’s

changing world, you need people around you

who have a different kind of knowledge and

have grown up thinking differently.

Consensus is not the optimal decision-making

approach in these times. Leaders must be

willing to stand alone and say I know what is the

right thing to do, and I direct you to do it,

forthwith. Otherwise, you’ll be building

consensus while people in need go without aid.

In an era in which one of every five children in

America goes to bed hungry, there isn’t time for

consensus. Instead, you need to assess

situations yourself, engage staff members in

thoughtful discussions to learn their views, and

then decide on a path to take and oversee the

effort to make it happen, also forthwith.

As Saul Alinsky wrote in delivering his rules:

“What follows is for those who want to change

the world from what it is to what they believe it

should be.” So, too, are these rules.

Rebecca Sive works in Chicago to advise nonprofits on advocacy campaigns, fund raising, and other matters.

Good Advice How the Downturn Changes Strategy Work By Jeanne Bell | August 9, 2011 As CEO of CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, which provides management advice to charities, I spend a large portion of every day thinking, in one form or another, about strategy. Over the past three years, my thinking, like that of many of my colleagues, has changed radically. First, strategy now seems to be as much about good decision making as good planning. Rather than thinking of myself as the expert architect of a process that will eventually yield strategy, I now work with executives to make good decisions in real time. In arriving at those decisions, we draw on some of the tools in a typical strategic-planning process, but a decision-making orientation changes the consulting arrangement—for the better. Second, formulating strategy is an explicitly financial exercise. Understanding the economics of any potential decision is critical. It doesn’t make sense to develop a strategy first and then consider the financial implications, even though that is still a standard planning approach. I now view financial literacy and rigor as job requirements for both nonprofit executives and strategy consultants. Third, I have been deeply influenced by the communications experts in our field—Holly Minch of LightBox Collaborative and Kristen Grimm of Spitfire Strategies, to name two exceptional examples. From them, I have learned that strategy must always be tied to brand. All good decisions reinforce a nonprofit’s brand, while bad decisions ultimately tarnish it. I like to start a strategy-formation process by asking executives: “What does the marketplace want you to be now?” Historically, too many consultants have worried that nonprofits that focus too much on that question are just chasing the money and straying from their missions. But all nonprofits are selling a service of some kind—and often selling it to distinct users and payers—in a dynamic marketplace filled with other players. How a nonprofit plans to advance its brand is therefore a key part of any strategy decision. As the recession and its aftershocks linger, the margin for error financially and strategically is razor thin for most nonprofits. As partners to nonprofit executives, strategy consultants who emphasize helping leaders make the best possible decisions on behalf of their organizations and causes—as quickly as possible—provide the greatest return on a nonprofit’s investment.

_______________

Messages from our Supporters

By Prentice Zinn of GMA Foundations

Summary: Web-based applications make it easy for foundations to receive and evaluate proposals, help funders communicate with applicants and collect information about how nonprofit organizations make a difference. GMA Foundations recently partnered with Foundant Technologies to move over 20 of our foundation clients to online applications. On the basis of our early experience, we found that the advantages of an online system outweigh the challenges of switching to the new system.

Better and more organized proposal information As GMA Foundations moved its clients to an online system, foundation staff and trustees remarked how the process increased the consistency and readability of the proposals. Online systems increase the quality of information foundations receive by allowing them to ask with more specificity what information they need to make decisions. Most applicants were also enthusiastic about the system’s convenience, efficiency and cost-savings to their nonprofit organizations. Our anonymous survey of 200 grant applicants that participated in GMA’s Foundant application process revealed that 83 percent were familiar with web-based applications. Sixty percent of respondents preferred the web-based approach over paper applications. Eighty-two percent of applicants who completed the survey responded that their experience was “excellent,” “very good,” or “good.” We were surprised by how many applicants appreciate the environmental benefits of online systems. “I like to see any organization making sound environmental choices,” said one grant writer. “This process saves, paper, envelopes and postage.”

A balancing act between writers and readers The applicants we surveyed were emphatic about what they did not like about online systems. They felt that many grant applications overly restrict character/word limits. Several also felt constrained in telling their story when foundations limit the number of documents an organization can upload. We learned that crafting a proposal application is a balancing act between the interests of proposal reviewers and grant writers. A

simplified application process that reviewers thought would promote concise writing and minimize extraneous fluff left many writers frustrated and feeling cheated out of an opportunity to fully tell their story. Many survey respondents felt similarly constrained by the cut-and-paste nature of the online application that does not allow for advanced formatting such as bullets, images, tables and other text enhancements. The proposal reviewers, on the other hand, loved the stripped-down readability of the online and hard-copy versions of the proposals. Standardized proposals also make it easier to quickly find information during a board meeting. In one instance, standardization helped us reduce the size of the briefing book for one foundation from one inch thick to only a quarter inch – a welcome sight to the trustees accustomed to a daunting stack of reading before every meeting.

Streamlining and right-sizing foundation grant applications Mark Larimer, Co-Founder of Foundant Technologies, reminded us early on that moving to an online system is more than just putting a paper version of an application on a web page. “It is a great opportunity to take a fresh look at all of the steps of the application process,” says Larimer. National initiatives such as Project Streamline have encouraged grantmakers to use online systems to reduce the burden that grant seeking places on grantees. The initiative is a collaborative effort between grantmakers and grantseekers working to improve the grant application process. Streamlining the process ensures that the effort that grantseekers devote to the grant is proportionate to the size of the grant. At GMA, we took the idea of “right sizing” as a challenge and, whenever possible, eliminated superfluous questions, attachments and forms that are not essential to making a grant decision. Nearly 20 percent of applicants had no experience with online applications. Making it easier for them required trial and error to make continual improvements in instructions, guidelines and other information that help the applicant at all phases of the application process.

Moving to Online Applications

One size never fits all. Character limits that are too tight frustrate the grantwriter. Character limits that are too generous frustrate the reviewer. Through trial and error we believe we are close to finding a happy medium.

Accommodating the techies and traditionalists The beauty of an online grant system is that it allows staff and trustees to review and manage grant applications on the web from any location. Staff and trustees working on their laptops in Sacramento or Istanbul can review proposals and provide votes, rankings and commentary online. Foundation staff and trustees who were already wired with their smart phones, e-readers, software “apps” and the like were eager users of the online system. “It was really easy, once you got the rhythm of it,” said one trustee after reviewing her assigned proposals. Many foundation trustees were adamant in their objections to reading on computer. They are perfectly content having little to do with the peculiarities of the digital realm and prefer the readability and conveniences of paper. Fortunately, the system allows us to print and manage applications in a way that can accommodate everyone. Managing the dual needs of “early adopters” and “traditionalists” is part of any transition to a new technology. It requires a little patience and flexibility on everyone’s part. Nor are online applications a seamless solution. They require a bit of working around the technology, redundant systems and more communication.

No pain, no gain Transitioning from one technology to another can temporarily slow you down and increase costs until you are over the hump and begin to reap the advantages. As we moved more foundations online, our staff experienced frustrations and disruptions at all points of the grant cycle. Everyone had to leave the comfort of our complex but well-defined work flows and enter the turbulence of an unfamiliar system. Navigating rough patches and negotiating trade-offs is part of the process. “We knew that we would be challenged by an initial decrease in efficiency as we switched systems, but decided that the long-term benefits would far

outweigh any short-term bumps in the road,” said GMA Foundations president Mary Phillips.

The future of the grant proposal As we jumped feet-first into the world of online grantmaking, we began to wonder if the traditional grant proposal structure and form may become a relic of philanthropy. The ability of technology to present, communicate and organize the ideas of the leading organizations in our communities will likely continue to push us to explore new and better forms of managing the information required to make social investments. We anticipate that foundations will begin to use technology to develop ways to better track project outcomes, increase communications with grantees and facilitate deeper discussions among staff and trustees. We look forward to using the flexibility of online systems to help foundations rethink how they collect the information before and after they make the grant that can help them assess the impact of their grantmaking and learn from the information they collect. Adopting the new technology may be one of the most effective interventions that help motivate foundations to clarify and communicate their missions, expectations and indicators of success.

Lessons learned • Improving ease of use never ends. Web-based

technology allows foundations to continually improve the grantseeker’s experience with technology at all phases of the grant process.

• Ask for feedback from applicants. The frank input of nonprofit leaders through surveys, interviews and focus groups was essential in improving the grant process for each foundation.

• Technical support from foundation staff is essential. Let’s face it, technology does not always work the way one might expect. A little help from a real person goes a long way in reducing the frustration of applicants.

• Start with the transactional but move to the strategic. If a foundation only transfers its traditional transactional grantmaking practices to an online format, it may not be using the technology to its full potential.

Prentice Zinn Foundant Technologies Ph: 617-391-3091 or pzinn@gmafoundations.com Ph: 877-297-0043 (www.foundant.com)

Critical Thinking on Sustainable Compensation and Benefits

n relation to current compensation and benefit programs offered by most employers, “the status quo is neither acceptable nor

sustainable.” Many companies, including our clients have been wrestling with their ability to sustain their compensation and benefit programs. The continual rise in healthcare spending has affected the bottom-line of many companies and families. The workforce in the United States is considerably older and now must work longer than past generations. “The Great Recession” has forced many employees to re-think retirement; so have the other realities that have employees working beyond “normal retirement” estimates:

• Decline of defined benefit plans • Poor family savings rates • Insufficient growth of financial assets • Increase in post-retirement lifespan • Cost of medical care

Most businesses and organizations are adjusting to new economic realities. The private sector has shed huge number of jobs to reduce costs. The public sector, especially at the State and Local levels, has serious revenue and expense imbalances which are not just fixed by raising taxes or cutting expenses deeply. And Non-profits, in particular, have experienced significant challenges with reduction in disposable income amongst individual donors, sharply diminished endowment funds, reduced capacity in grantor and government funds, and increased community needs. Today many non-profits are struggling to learn acquire the skills needed to respond effectively to the challenge of being able to create a balanced budget while maintaining the staff necessary to meet their mission. Grantor organizations are increasingly placed in a position of having to choose between long-term grantee

partners as their grant funds are constricted and their budgets cut to facilitate sustainability. While many companies and industries have right sized themselves and their balance sheets, sustained business growth has been difficult to achieve. Information released in the 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation in their annual report confirmed the average cost for family healthcare coverage is in excess of $15,000. This same report noted that healthcare costs increased 9% from the previous year, and this is in a “down “economy. It is harder if not near impossible, in today economy to absorb escalating healthcare costs and rising wages; our economy has not translated into better jobs or wage growth. Organizations and businesses are unable to raise the donations and businesses can no longer simply pass on increased costs to their customers as had been in the past. The current reality for most workers is their total rewards have declined in recent years. Today’s employees can no longer expect wages and their total rewards to rise year after year - a new normal has emerged. Specifically, the fixed nature of many compensation and benefit programs is forcing employers to rethink their compensation and benefits, or total rewards “contract” with employees. Shifting away from a fixed entitlement expense to a more flexible stakeholder plan is complex, but a necessary strategy to hedge against business uncertainty that will tie business results to all stakeholders. Today Total Rewards brings compensation (base pay, short term incentives, and long term incentives), Benefits (health, retirement...) development and training (training, tuition reimbursement, career progression) and work/life environment (vacation/paid-time-off banks, flex time, wellness …) into a more flexible holistic approach that connects people strategy to performance.

I

Workers’ needs to make a living wage has to better fit the company’s sustainability objectives. Having a competitive total rewards structure REQUIRES increased financial transparency and communication from management and boards of directors. Organizations that find the time and money to integrate mission into human resource policy, communicate through a variety of mechanisms, engage their employees frequently and in different ways will thrive, not just survive. Still, companies need to be prepared to share the success and failure with employees. High performing organizations cannot afford to simply waiting for the annual renewal to tackle their healthcare challenges. The following are examples that have proven successful: 1. High performers have embraced wellness and seek to engage employees to take greater ownership of their behaviors and habits. Higher performing companies find ways that work to have high (80-90%) participation in their health risk assessment process. Being genuinely concerned for the individual’s health and well being is often overlooked, but appreciated by the employee. It can be as simple as making it easier to have tests performed, or finding a lower cost, high quality provider in area such as imaging. 2. The high performer organization is not shy of demanding more service and performance from

their vendors by making them partners. Creating partnerships means requiring data and interactions that facilitate continual improvement. Whether it is developing specific engagement strategies for chronic and acute members or using data to target gaps in care amongst the population; high performers are partnering to build sustainability. 3. Extending total rewards throughout an organizations structures beyond executive or key employee incentives, is a critical step to create a broader group of stakeholders. The growing use of variable pay along with low or salary increase is the new normal. Unfortunately, many companies and employees are not prepared for the new reality. 4. With limited funds some employers are investing in their best performing, highest potential employees. They need talent, they need skills, but it’s a narrower opportunity with less employees involved then in the past and is counter to earlier nonprofit management philosophies. Without a major shift, employers cannot achieve a sustainable benefit program and ultimately a sustainable bottom line. What is exciting is that organizations are thriving by no longer relying on old tactics such as just “going out to bid or change insurer carrier. Instead, they are now taking more informed steps to manage employee expectations, finding opportunities for improving employee engagement, improving health literacy and subsequently, decreasing health risk.. Embracing more flexible compensation and benefit approaches can increase employee engagement and productivity as long as it is well understood and communicated. All of these actions are lowering employer costs and thus, supporting them as they build a more sustainable organization to be around to meet the mission and vision of its community for hopefully, a long time to come.

For more information, contact: Tom Belmont, Area President (Tom_Belmont@ajg.com) Ivy Silver, Area Vice President (Ivy_Silver@ajg.com)

By Robert Capanna, Director, Prudent Management Associates The Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance’s recently released “2011 Portfolio” study provided an in-depth look at the financial health of the region’s cultural not-for-profit institutions, comparing FY 2007 numbers with FY 2009 ones.1

While generally up-beat about the sector’s resilience in the face of the Great Recession, the study had some disturbing findings, notably that net income, excluding investments and investment revenue, moved from +2% in FY 2007 to -9% in FY 2009. Including investments and investment revenue, the move was more startling: +29% in 2007 to -10% in 2009, a 39 point swing in just two years. In fact, among revenue categories, the sharpest drop was in investments and investment revenue, which is an aggregate of interest and dividends and realized and unrealized gains and losses – a whopping -128% decline from a gain of $333 million in 2007 to a loss of -$92 million in 2009. While some of this is ephemeral (unrealized losses capture a moment in time valuation that may be recouped as the market improves), this finding has significant implications for all institutions that rely on endowments and invested cash reserves to fund programmatic activity. Prudent Management Associates assisted the Cultural Alliance in analyzing the investment results of the organizations included in the study. Our analysis found that, by and large, institutional returns tracked relatively closely to two pertinent benchmarks, the S&P 500 Index, a general barometer of the largest companies in the domestic equity market, and the Lipper Balanced Fund Index, made up of the results of the thirty largest mutual funds that invest in portfolios balanced between equities and fixed income (which would be a typical investment mix for an institutional endowment). Because participating institutions report on fiscal years that end in different months (in this sample, every month but April and November), we compared aggregate monthly results against a twelve month trailing average for the indices. On average, these institutional endowments out-performed the S&P 500 by about 4.2% over the twelve-month ending periods of the sample from 2007 through 2009, and were essentially even with the Lipper Balanced Fund Index for that same period. Balanced strategies obviously did better than an all-equity S&P 500 weighting during this period, but these particular endowment results did no better than the average of balanced portfolio investors represented in the Lipper Index.2

The institutions lost an average of -2% per period, the Lipper Index -2.2% per period, and the S&P 500 lost -6.2% per period.

From an operating standpoint, the cumulative effect of these results is much more significant than the degree to which they mirror average market experiences. The Portfolio study shows that the overall dollar value of these institutional investments fell 19%, from $2.3 billion in FY 2007 to $1.9 billion in FY

1 2011 Portfolio is based on an analysis of data derived from the Pennsylvania Cultural Data Project and is available from the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance. 2 Institutional endowments did slightly worse than the Lipper Index in 2007 (-.4%) and 2008 (-.3%), but better in 2009 (+1.1%).

Investment Results Key to 2011 Portfolio Findings

2009. Based on a typical 5% spending rule, that $400 million principal loss implies a $20 million per year loss in investment income. If these institutional investors have continued to track Lipper Index results through 2010, they had about a 12% return which, after spending, will have left their endowment values just north of $2 billion at year end. This would imply a continued income loss of about $14 million per year compared to 2007 levels. Further compounding this issue is the difficulty institutions have in cutting back their spending rate as investment values decline. As Prudent Management Associates founding partner Dr. Marshall E. Blume demonstrated in his study of the effect of spending rates and asset allocation on endowment perpetuity, the ability to limit spending in down markets is both crucial to preserving assets and very hard to do, since the reductions need to happen at a time when institutions are most hungry for operating revenue.3

Institutional investments during a period of severe market turmoil are clearly a good news/bad news proposition. On the one hand, having unrestricted assets that can be used to cushion revenue shortfalls is a tremendous advantage. On the other hand, borrowing from principal reserves that may or may not be restricted but have been relied upon to provide regular income can have a compounding effect on future years’ results. Organizations with a regular stream of revenue from investments have a sense of independence from the vagaries of annual ticket sales and contributions, but overreliance on investment revenue can severely impact operating revenue in a down market. In the case of the cultural sector in this study, earned revenue not counting investments declined by 1%; with investments included it declined 62%. Not surprisingly, poor investment results impacted larger organizations more, as did other revenue trends. The study notes total revenue declines from 2007 to 2009 of -4%, -12%, -23% and -51% for small, medium, large and very large organizations, respectively. In addition to the other effects of a bad economy on any organization’s operations, not-for-profit institutions all feel the effect of investment results whether or not they have investments, since investment results drive foundation giving as well. The 2011 Portfolio found an overall -30% decline in foundation giving to these arts organizations. While investment management may not feel as urgent or critical as other aspects of managing an institution’s finances, this study makes clear that investment results can have enormous immediate and longer-term impact on an organization’s operations. Institutions should consider a periodic review of their investment goals, policies and management as an important part of their overall financial due diligence. ______________________________________________________________________________________ For more information: Contact By Robert Capanna, Director, Prudent Management Associates, at 215-994-1062 or rcapanna@prudentmanagement.com.

3 “Endowment Spending in Volatile Markets: What Should Fiduciaries Do?”, Springer Science and Business Media, LLC, Marshall E. Blume, PhD, October 2009

ABOUT DVG Delaware Valley Grantmakers,

the region’s forum for philanthropy, serves as a network, resource and voice to

help philanthropy strengthen and improve the health and vitality of our communities.

To learn more,

please visit us online at: www.dvg.org

____

DVG STAFF Debra A. Kahn

Executive Director

Ashley Feuer-Edwards Director of Member Services

Amy Seasholtz

Director of Communications

Matt Smith Director of Finance and Administration

2011 Board of Directors President Ronnie L. Bloom William Penn Foundation Vice President Mailee Walker Claneil Foundation, Inc. Secretary Sara S. Moran Seybert Foundation Treasurer Valerie K. Martin John Templeton Foundation Bill Black The Comcast Foundation Jennifer T. Bohnenberger Independence Foundation Denise M. Brown Leeway Foundation Meredith Huffman Genuardi Family Foundation Russell Johnson North Penn Community Health Foundation Heidi McPherson Chester County Fund for Women and Girls Mellanie K. Lassiter PECO Rebecca Quinn-Wolf PNC Foundation Gregory T. Rowe The Pew Charitable Trusts Ann Schmieg United Way of Southeastern PA Susan Segal Lincoln Financial Foundation Weston Somerville Prudential Andrew Toy The Merchants Fund Beatriz Vieira The Philadelphia Foundation Tami Wise Vanguard Group Foundation Diane Louise (D-L) Wormley Union Benevolent Association

___________________________________________

230 South Broad Street, Suite 402, Philadelphia, PA 19102 P: 215-790-9700 www.dvg.org